The Well Column: Facing Cancer, a Stark Choice

In the 1970s, women’s health advocates were highly suspicious of mastectomies. They argued that surgeons — in those days, pretty much an all-male club — were far too quick to remove a breast after a diagnosis of cancer, with disfiguring results.

But today, the pendulum has swung the other way. A new generation of women want doctors to take a more aggressive approach, and more and more are asking that even healthy breasts be removed to ward off cancer before it can strike.

Researchers estimate that as many as 15 percent of women with breast cancer — 30,000 a year — opt to have both breasts removed, up from less than 3 percent in the late 1990s. Notably, it appears that the vast majority of these women have never received genetic testing or counseling and are basing the decision on exaggerated fears about their risk of recurrence.

In addition, doctors say an increasing number of women who have never had a cancer diagnosis are demanding mastectomies based on genetic risk. (Cancer databases don’t track these women, so their numbers are unknown.)

“We are confronting almost an epidemic of prophylactic mastectomy,” said Dr. Isabelle Bedrosian, a surgical oncologist at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston. “I think the medical community has taken notice. We don’t have data that say oncologically this is a necessity, so why are women making this choice?”

One reason may be the never-ending awareness campaigns that have left many women in perpetual fear of the disease. Improvements in breast reconstruction may also be driving the trend, along with celebrities who go public with their decision to undergo preventive mastectomy.

This month Allyn Rose, a 24-year-old Miss America contestant from Washington, D.C., made headlines when she announced plans to have both her healthy breasts removed after the pageant; both her mother and her grandmother died from breast cancer. The television personality Giuliana Rancic, 37, and the actress Christina Applegate, 41, also talked publicly about having double mastectomies after diagnoses of early-stage breast cancer.

“You’re not going to find other organs that people cut out of their bodies because they’re worried about disease,” said the medical historian Dr. Barron H. Lerner, author of “The Breast Cancer Wars” (2001). “Because breast cancer is a disease that is so emotionally charged and gets so much attention, I think at times women feel almost obligated to be as proactive as possible — that’s the culture of breast cancer.”

Most of the data on prophylactic mastectomy come from the University of Minnesota, where researchers tracked contralateral mastectomy trends (removing a healthy breast alongside one with cancer) from 1998 to 2006. Dr. Todd M. Tuttle, chief of surgical oncology, said double mastectomy rates more than doubled during that period and the rise showed no signs of slowing.

From those trends as well as anecdotal reports, Dr. Tuttle estimates that at least 15 percent of women who receive a breast cancer diagnosis will have the second, healthy breast removed. “It’s younger women who are doing it,” he said.

The risk that a woman with breast cancer will develop cancer in the other breast is about 5 percent over 10 years, Dr. Tuttle said. Yet a University of Minnesota study found that women estimated their risk to be more than 30 percent.

“I think there are women who markedly overestimate their risk of getting cancer,” he said.

Most experts agree that double mastectomy is a reasonable option for women who have a strong genetic risk and have tested positive for a breast cancer gene. That was the case with Allison Gilbert, 42, a writer in Westchester County who discovered her genetic risk after her grandmother died of breast cancer and her mother died of ovarian cancer.

Even so, she delayed the decision to get prophylactic mastectomy until her aunt died from an aggressive breast cancer. In August, she had a double mastectomy. (She had her ovaries removed earlier.)

“I feel the women in my family didn’t have a way to avoid their fate,” said Ms. Gilbert, author of the 2011 book “Parentless Parents,” about how losing a parent influences one’s own style of parenting. “Here I was given an incredible opportunity to know what I have and to do something about it and, God willing, be around for my kids longer.”

Even so, she said her decisions were not made lightly. The double mastectomy and reconstruction required an initial 11 1/2-hour surgery and an “intense” recovery. She got genetic counseling, joined support groups and researched her options.

But doctors say many women are not making such informed decisions. Last month, University of Michigan researchers reported on a study of more than 1,446 women who had breast cancer. Four years after their diagnosis, 35 percent were considering removing their healthy breast and 7 percent had already done so.

Notably, most of the women who had a double mastectomy were not at high risk for a cancer recurrence. In fact, studies suggest that most women who have double mastectomies never seek genetic testing or counseling.

“Breast cancer becomes very emotional for people, and they view a breast differently than an arm or a required body part that you use every day,” said Sarah T. Hawley, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Michigan. “Women feel like it’s a body part over which they totally have a choice, and they say, ‘I want to put this behind me — I don’t want to worry about it anymore.’ ”

---

We hope you’ll “Like” Well on Facebook, where you’ll find news and conversations about fitness, food and family health.

Read More..

DealBook: Can Britain Forge Looser Ties to Europe Without Losing Influence?

LONDON — Last year, Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain used his appearance at the World Economic Forum to vent frustration with the European Union, listing some of the policies he would ditch if he could throw off Europe’s regulatory shackles.

“In the name of social protection, the E.U. has promoted unnecessary measures that impose burdens on businesses and governments, and can destroy jobs,” he argued, adding a list of directives that he would like to scrap.

One year later, Mr. Cameron is following through on that pledge. He is promising to renegotiate Britain’s ties to the 27-nation bloc, forge a new and looser relationship, and is expected to say on Wednesday that he would put the outcome of those talks to a referendum.

A speech on Europe, planned for last week, was postponed because of the crisis in Algeria. It has been rescheduled for Wednesday, ahead of a possible visit by Mr. Cameron to Davos, Switzerland.

It was unclear whether Mr. Cameron would attend Davos this year and speak on the same theme. But his tough line on Europe echoes growing British disenchantment with a bloc whose single currency union, which the British never joined, has been in crisis for three years.

Yet, supposing Mr. Cameron were to succeed in scaling down Britain’s involvement, some central questions will arise. Can Britain play a more limited role in Brussels and still retain significant influence there? And what might that mean for Britain’s full participation in one of the world’s biggest single markets?

In their 40-year history of engagement with a unifying Europe, Britons have never embraced the ideal of unity; instead they have seen their ties to the Continent in pragmatic terms. Increasingly, London’s conclusion seems to be that the costs in terms of regulatory burdens and financial contributions are not outweighed by clear benefits.

Mr. Cameron argues that to stabilize support for the European Union in Britain, the relationship must be loosened and focused more on the bloc’s single market of almost 500 million people.

Britain, which is in the second tier of European Union membership, not only stayed out of the euro — and unlike most of the others on the sidelines has no intention of joining — but also does not participate in Europe’s Schengen passport-free travel zone. The British government also announced last year that it would opt out of a range of justice and security policy areas.

A group of Conservative lawmakers argued last week for five treaty changes, including those that would allow any country to block new European Union legislation on financial services, and would repatriate social and employment laws to national capitals. Britain’s euro skeptics are also blunt in their criticism of the bloc’s agricultural, fisheries and regional aid programs

Many would ideally like to keep just one element of European Union membership, access to the single market, though achieving such status looks highly improbable.

Even those who sympathize with Mr. Cameron’s stance argue that a more detached position comes at the price of reduced influence, though they contend the cost of not changing would be higher. They also argue that leverage in some of the policy areas is of limited value anyway.

“There is a trade-off, there is no doubt,” said Mats Persson, director of Open Europe, a research organization that favors a change in Britain’s relationship with the union. “If you reduce the level of E.U. influence in the British economy and society, you will lose some influence over some policy areas.”

But Mr. Persson argues that “if there is no change in Britain’s E.U. relationship, its membership is in question, which would really reduce its influence.”

Others worry that Britain is weakening its own position. Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform, a research institute in London, says that already “British influence in Brussels is at its lowest level in the 25 years I have been following the E.U.”

And critics argue that standing back from more policy arenas would increase the country’s sense of alienation from the bloc and fuel popular sentiment that things are stacked against Britain. A more detached relationship could also prove a disadvantage in the deal-making culture that prevails in Brussels.

Officially, decisions on legislation in Brussels are made by national governments under a complex series of rules before going to the European Parliament, whose approval is also required. In some cases, like tax policy, all 27 national governments need to agree, though in many others a weighted majority is required.

But relatively few decisions are actually put to a vote by governments. In practice, countries strike informal agreements and compromises, often trading support on one issue for a reciprocal agreement, sometimes in an unrelated area of policy.

For example, Britain once supported Germany, which wanted to water down planned rules on takeovers, in exchange for help from Berlin to soften new European Union legislation on workers’ rights.

The fewer areas in which a country participates, the less influence it has to barter.

Something similar affects another area of unofficial influence: control of crucial positions in Brussels. When the last round of top European Union jobs was decided, Tony Blair, a former British prime minister, was a contender to become the president of the European Council, the body in which national governments meet. But Britain’s absence from the euro currency and the Schengen zone made this a nonstarter.

The prime minister at the time, Gordon Brown, wanted a top economic post for Britain in the European Commission, the executive of the bloc. Instead, he got a foreign policy position for Catherine Ashton, reflecting the fact that Britain remained an engaged player in that area.

The euro has dominated the agenda in Brussels for the last three years, but Britons have reduced prospects of making big careers in this policy area because London has no power to lobby for them.

“If you are in the Treasury in London, why the hell would you go to Brussels?” said one European Union official not authorized to speak publicly.

That trend now looks likely to extend to justice and security policy. Britain recently held the most senior position in the justice and home affairs directorate of the European Commission, partly because the British used to be enthusiastic about cooperation in that forum. A Briton, Rob Wainwright, is currently the director of Europol, the bloc’s law enforcement agency.

But given the government’s decision to distance itself, it will be harder for Britons to get such top jobs in the future.

Declining career prospects for British officials are reflected in staff recruitment figures, released in April 2011. They showed that the European Commission now employed more Poles than Britons, though Britain has a larger population and joined the European Union’s forerunner more than 30 years before Polish accession in 2004.

Britain has fewer than half France’s number of European Commission officials, and the situation seems destined to deteriorate because relatively few Britons are applying for entry-level jobs.

All this risks creating a downward spiral in British influence, which the country would need to counter by being more effective in the areas in which it remains.

“I think Britain still could have clout in more limited areas if it keeps friends and allies,” Mr. Grant said. “But the fact that we are not, for example, so engaged in justice and home affairs weakens our bargaining power across policy areas and weakens the career prospects of British officials.”

Mr. Grant added, “There has been a steady diminution in the last few years, which you could plot on a graph: the more you distance yourself the less influence you have.”

Read More..

DealBook: Thai Magnate's $11.2 Billion Bid Poised to Win Fraser & Neave

HONG KONG — After four months of fierce bidding between two Asian tycoons, a multibillion-dollar battle for control of Fraser & Neave appears to have reached its end.

A bidding deadline on Monday evening set by Singapore’s takeover regulator came and went, meaning the victor will probably be TCC Assets, which is controlled by Charoen Sirivadhanabhakdi of Thailand. TCC Assets raised its offer on Friday to 9.55 Singapore dollars a share, valuing Fraser & Neave at 13.76 billion Singapore dollars ($11.19 billion).

That was apparently enough to chase away a counteroffer by Overseas Union Enterprise, which is part of the Indonesian billionaire Mochtar Riady’s Lippo Group and is led by Mr. Riady’s son Stephen.

Overseas Union had entered the contest for Fraser & Neave in November, when it bid 9.08 dollars a share.

Under the terms of the auction process — set last week by the takeover regulator, the Securities Industry Council, and intended to remove uncertainty for shareholders — Overseas Union had until 6 p.m. on Monday in Singapore to submit an increased offer.

Had it done so, TCC Assets would have had 24 hours to counter, and the auction would have continued until one of the parties failed to submit a counteroffer.

In a statement after the deadline passed, Overseas Union confirmed it had not made a new bid, saying that in order to succeed it “would need to significantly increase the offer price to a level which is no longer as attractive to Overseas Union, in particular, given the potential impact of the recent measures taken by the Singapore government in relation to the property market.”

Fraser & Neave, established in 1883 to sell carbonated drinks in Southeast Asia, owns businesses that include beverages, shopping centers and full-service apartments. In September, the company agreed to sell its controlling stake in Asia Pacific Breweries, the maker of Tiger Beer, to Heineken in a deal worth $4.6 billion.

TCC Assets already owned a 30 percent stake in Fraser & Neave, and in September made an initial takeover bid for the company at 8.88 dollars a share. Since then, TCC Assets has increased its stake to 40 percent. The Thai company’s revised bid on Friday represented a 5.2 percent premium to the offer submitted by Overseas Union in November.

The passing of Monday’s deadline without a new bid from Overseas Union means shareholders are likely to favor the higher offer from TCC Assets when they vote on the deal. A vote has yet to be scheduled.

Investors in Fraser & Neave have been bullish for months. On Monday, an hour before the deadline, the stock closed at a record high of 9.74 dollars. That was up 1.7 percent from the closing price on Friday and above any of the takeover bids that had been announced.

Overseas Union is being advised by Credit Suisse, Bank of America Merrill Lynch and C.I.M.B. of Malaysia. TCC Asset’s advisers are the United Overseas Bank, DBS of Singapore and Morgan Stanley.

Read More..

Samsung decides to kick RIM when it’s down by bashing BlackBerry in new ad [video]

Samsung (005930) is well known for its clever ads mocking Apple (AAPL) and its fans, but the company has decided to pick on a less powerful target in its newest ad that takes swipes RIM (RIMM) and its BlackBerry smartphones. The ad revolves around an office that is implementing its own bring-your-own-device policy and is meant to show that both the Galaxy S III and the Galaxy Note II are ideal business phones that can enable greater creativity. While most workers in the ad happily switch to Samsung smartphones after the BYOD policy is put in place, one of them insists on clinging to his BlackBerry, which prompts one of his coworkers to ask, “Are you finally going to retire that thing?” The full video is posted below.

[More from BGR: BlackBerry 10 OS walkthrough, BlackBerry Z10 pricing]

This article was originally published on BGR.com

Gadgets News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Jim, John Harbaugh ready for rematch at Super Bowl

SANTA CLARA, Calif. (AP) — Jim and John Harbaugh have exchanged a handful of text messages, and plan to leave it at that. No phone conversations necessary while the season's still going. No time for pleasantries, even for the friendly siblings.

There is work to be done to prepare for the Super Bowl, prepare for each other, prepare for a history-making day already being widely hyped as "Harbowl" or "Superbaugh" depending which nickname you prefer.

"It doesn't matter who the coach is, what relationship you have with the person on the other side," 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh said so matter-of-factly Monday afternoon.

Their parents sure aren't picking sides for the Feb. 3 matchup in New Orleans.

These days, the Harbaughs' longtime coaching father, Jack, stays away from game-planning chatter or strategy sessions with his Super Bowl-bound coaching sons. Baltimore's John Harbaugh and little brother Jim have been doing this long enough now to no longer need dad's input.

Yet, they still regularly seek it. And, their father does offer one basic mantra: "Get ahead, stay ahead."

"Probably the greatest advice that I've ever been given and the only advice that I've ever found to be true in all of coaching, I think we mentioned it to both John and Jim ... the coaching advice is, 'Get ahead, stay ahead,'" Jack Harbaugh said.

"If I'm called upon, I'll repeat that same message."

His boys still call home regularly to check in with the man who turned both on to the coaching profession years ago, and the mother who has handled everything behind the scenes for decades in a highly competitive, sports-crazed family — with all the routine sports clichés to show for it.

The Harbaugh brothers will become the first siblings to square off from opposite sidelines when their teams play for the NFL championship at the Superdome.

Not that they're too keen on playing up the storyline that has no chance of going away as hard as they try.

"Well, I think it's a blessing and a curse," Jim Harbaugh said Monday. "A blessing because that is my brother's team. And, also, personally I played for the Ravens. Great respect for their organization. ... The curse part would be the talk of two brothers playing in the Super Bowl and what that takes away from the players that are in the game. Every moment that you're talking about myself or John, that's less time that the players are going to be talked about."

Both men love history, just not the kind with them making it.

"I like reading a lot of history ... I guess it's pretty neat," John Harbaugh offered Monday. "But is it really going to be written about? It's not exactly like Churchill and Roosevelt or anything. It's pretty cool, but that's as far as it goes."

Nice try, guys.

John watched the end of Jim's game from the field in Foxborough, Mass., as Baltimore warmed up for the AFC championship game. Jim called his sister's family from the team plane before takeoff after a win at Atlanta and asked how his big brother's team was doing against New England.

The improbable Super Bowl features a set of brothers known around the NFL as fierce competitors unafraid to make a bold move during the season. Unafraid to upset anyone who stands in their way.

In fact, each one made a major change midseason to get this far — John fired his offensive coordinator, while Jim boosted his offense with a quarterback switch from Alex Smith to Colin Kaepernick.

Leading up to Sunday's games, parents Jack and Jackie said they would wait to decide whether to travel to New Orleans if both teams advanced or stick to what has been working so well — watching from the comfort of their couch in Mequon, Wis.

"We enjoy it very much. We get down in our basement, turn on the television and just have a fantastic day watching outstanding football," Jack said last week. "We share our misery with no one but ourselves. Not only the misery, but the ups and downs, the ins and outs of an outstanding professional game."

And, no, the Harbaughs weren't looking ahead to a potential big trip to the Big Easy.

Jack insists his wife is quick to pull out that old sports cliche: "It's one game at a time. I think it's very appropriate," he said.

Jim figures they won't possibly miss this history-making game.

"I think they'll be there," he said with a smile.

The brothers, separated in age by 15 months, have taken different paths to football's biggest stage — years after their intense games of knee football at the family home. They tried to beat each other at cards, or whatever other game it was at the time. Sometimes, they tried to beat each other up. Sister, Joani Crean, often got in on the fun, too.

The 49-year-old Jim never reached a Super Bowl, falling a last-gasp pass short during a 15-year NFL career as a quarterback. The 50-year-old John never played in the NFL.

Still, both will tell you, "Who's got it better than us? No-body!" — one catchphrase they got from their dad.

"We can't put into words what it means to see John and Jim achieve this incredible milestone," their brother-in-law, Indiana basketball coach Tom Crean, said on Twitter. "We talked to Jim (before) his team plane left. All he wanted to know was how was John doing? How were they playing? One incredible family who puts the care, well-being and love for each other at the forefront like most families do. Again, we are very proud of them. Going to be exciting to watch it unfold."

John worked his way up from the bottom of the coaching ranks, while Jim was the star college quarterback at Michigan, a first-round draft pick and eventual Pro Bowler who made coaching his career once he retired.

John already has the one-up, while Jim's team is the early favorite. John's Ravens beat the 49ers 16-6 on Thanksgiving night 2011, in Jim's rookie season as an NFL coach — though both know that means nothing now.

"I just want everybody to know, that was a four-day deal and every story has been told," John said. "We're not that interesting. There's nothing more to learn. The tape across the middle of the room story, OK, you got it? It's OK. It was just like any other family, really. I really hope the focus is not so much on that. We get it, it's really cool and it's exciting and all that."

Said Jim, "Completely new business."

In spite of his efforts to avoid the topic, Jim did take the opportunity to express how proud he is of John.

"He's a great football coach, a real grasp of all phases — offense, defense, special teams. I think he could coordinate at least two of those phases and do it as well as anyone in the league," Jim said. "I've got half the amount of coaching experience he does. Again, it's not about us. I keep coming back to that. I'm really proud of my brother. I love him. That's the blessing part, that this is happening to him."

And, fittingly for the big brother, John feels the exact same way.

___

AP Sports Writer Dave Ginsburg in Baltimore contributed to this story.

___

Online: http://pro32.ap.org/poll and http://twitter.com/AP_NFL

Read More..

Well: An Unexpected Road Hazard: Obesity

Obesity carries yet another surprising risk, according to a new study: obese drivers are more likely than normal weight drivers to die in a car crash.

Researchers reviewed data on accidents recorded in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, managed by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Beginning with 41,283 collisions, the scientists selected accidents in which the cars, trucks or minivans were the same size.

Then the investigators gathered statistics on height and weight from driver’s licenses and categorized the drivers of wrecked cars into four groups based on body mass index. The study, published online Monday in the Emergency Medicine Journal, also recorded information on seat-belt use, time of day of the accident, driver sex, driver alcohol use, air bag deployment and collision type.

In the analysis, there were 6,806 drivers involved in 3,403 accidents, all of which involved at least one fatality. Among the 5,225 drivers for whom the researchers had complete information, 3 percent were underweight (a B.M.I of less than 18.5), 46 percent were of normal weight (18.5 to 24.9), 33 percent were overweight (25 to 29.9) and 18 percent were obese (a B.M.I. above 30).

Drivers with a B.M.I. under 18 and those between 25 and 29.9 had death rates about the same as people of normal weight, the researchers found. But among the obese, the higher the B.M.I., the more likely a driver was to die in an accident.

A B.M.I. of 30 to 34.9 was linked to a 21 percent increase in risk of death, and a number between 35 and 39.9 to a 51 percent increase. Drivers with a B.M.I. above 40 were 81 percent more likely to die than those of normal weight in similar accidents.

The reasons for the association are unclear, but they probably involve both vehicle design and the poorer health of obese people. The authors cite one study using obese and normal cadavers, in which obese people had significantly more forward movement away from the vehicle seat before the seat belt engaged because the additional soft tissue prevented the belt from fitting tightly.

“This adds one more item to the long list of negative consequences of obesity,” said the lead author, Thomas M. Rice, an epidemiologist with the Transportation Research and Education Center of the University of California, Berkeley. “It’s one more reason to lose weight.”

Other factors that might have affected fatality rates — the age and sex of the driver, the vehicle type, seat-belt use, alcohol use, air bag deployment and whether the collision was head-on or not — did not explain the differences between obese and normal weight drivers.

“Vehicle designers are teaching to the test — designing so that crash-test dummies do well,” Dr. Rice said. “But crash-test dummies are typically normal size adults and children. They’re not designed to account for our nation’s changing body types.”

Read More..

DealBook: With Tax Advantages Looking Shaky, Private Equity Seeks a New Path

As Washington grapples with the country’s fiscal woes, the private equity industry is grudgingly facing a new reality: its long-held tax advantages are likely to disappear.

For years, private equity has quashed efforts to raise taxes on so-called carried interest income, the profits partners receive as part of their compensation. Those earnings are considered capital gains, so they are taxed at a much lower rate than ordinary income.

While few concede defeat publicly, the industry is rethinking its strategy. Rather than trying to stop the changes outright, lawyers and executives behind the scenes are trying to minimize the hit if it happens.

Private equity recognizes the shifting politics. In the current budget debate, sacred cows like the tax deductions for home mortgage interest and charitable donations are on the table, along with potential cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

“Once they start looking for revenues, carried interest will be on the list,” said Anne Mathias, director of Washington policy research at Guggenheim Partners, a financial services firm. “You can hear it already: ‘We need that money, or Grandma won’t get a new hip.’ ”

Democrats and Republicans alike are looking at eliminating loopholes as part of a broader effort to overhaul the tax code. Changes to the treatment of carried interest could bring in $17 billion over 10 years, according to Congressional estimates.

“There is absolutely no reason why income earned for managing other people’s money shouldn’t be taxed in the same way as income earned teaching or working in a factory,” said Representative Sander M. Levin, Democrat of Michigan, who introduced the latest carried interest bill in 2012. Legislation based on Mr. Levin’s bill is likely to be part of a broader package if carried interest comes into play.

Officially, the private equity industry remains opposed to change. Its lobbying group, the Private Equity Growth Capital Council, began an extensive public relations campaign last year to improve the industry’s image during the presidential race, in which the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney, was criticized for his actions as chief executive of the private equity firm Bain Capital.

The trade group also increased its Congressional lobbying. To highlight the industry’s economic contributions, it arranged 70 meetings in which House members visited private-equity-owned companies or met their chiefs. For example, Representative Robert Hurt, Republican of Virginia, toured a distribution center for Dollar General, a retailer previously owned by Kohlberg Kravis Roberts.

“We will continue to do what we have always done,” said Steve Judge, chief executive of the trade group.

He and others argue that it is appropriate to treat private equity income as capital gains because managers have money at risk and actively reorganize companies. Mr. Judge also noted that private equity is already paying more under the deal to avert the fiscal cliff, which raised the capital gains tax rate to 20 percent from 15 percent, on top of the 3.8 percent capital gains surcharge enacted on wealthy taxpayers to finance President Obama’s health care law.

But even as the industry continues to press its case, many of its members acknowledge that the carried interest break is coming to an end. “At some point it’s inevitable, so they will deal with it,” said Bradley Morrow, a senior private markets consultant at Towers Watson. If the proposal does re-emerge, the industry is expected to focus its lobbying on softening transition rules.

One issue will be the amount of carried interest reclassified as ordinary income. Mr. Levin’s 2012 bill would convert 100 percent of carried interest. By contrast, an earlier version of the bill proposed capping the affected income at 50 percent to 75 percent.

The industry is also likely to focus on how quickly any changes would go into effect. Lobbyists will probably push for a longer delay, even if it means little or no cap, said Micah W. Bloomfield, a tax lawyer with Stroock & Stroock & Lavan. That would give partners more time to pocket capital gains or restructure funds before the rate increase took effect.

Another point of contention will be the treatment of profits that partners earn when they sell stakes in their firms, a sum known as enterprise value. Currently, profits attributable to enterprise value are treated as capital gains. In earlier bills, they would have been reclassified as ordinary income.

“What people complained most vociferously about in the earlier bills was the treatment of enterprise value,” said James R. Brown, a tax lawyer with Willkie Farr & Gallagher. If a fund manager sold the business, “all the gain from the sale would have been considered ordinary income,” Mr. Brown said. “That’s a big difference in how any other business is taxed when it’s sold.”

The Obama administration and Congressional proponents of reform acknowledge the problem. Mr. Levin’s latest bill included provisions to treat enterprise value as capital gains. The issue is particularly important for large, publicly traded firms like Blackstone and K.K.R. As partners near retirement, they see it as crucial to get capital gains tax treatment when they divest their stakes.

But the issue is complex. Congressional tax staff, worried that firms could redefine some carried interest as enterprise value, wrote the language of the bill narrowly to prevent abuse.

Private equity advocates argue that the bill still casts too wide a net, and that some legitimate profits from business sales would end up classified as ordinary income.

“They may think they have solved the issue, but they haven’t,” said one industry lobbyist, who requested anonymity because of the delicacy of the discussions.

Beyond transition rules, firms might consider adapting their own structures if the break does end.

The simplest strategy — one already occurring — is to accelerate the recognition of accrued capital gains. Funds might also remove some unrealized carried interest from their investment partnerships altogether, said Steven Rosenthal, a visiting fellow at the Washington-based Tax Policy Center. They could do that by shifting ownership of the gains to an affiliate by distributing securities of equal value.

These ideas may not all work, but funds are preparing nonetheless. Many have added language to partnership agreements, reserving the right to restructure, Mr. Brown said.

Tax lawyers have been searching for a broader escape hatch for years, in something of a cat-and-mouse game with legislators. In one early proposal, the lawyers suggested that general partners borrow money from limited partners to help capitalize a fund. They also explored setting up funds using foreign corporations that allow income to flow through to their owners as capital gains. But legislators rejected those ideas in later bills.

A potential strategy still being discussed involves setting up new funds as America-based C corporations, which the Internal Revenue Service taxes separately from their owners. In one possibility, a private equity firm would create a corporate holding company to buy and manage each individual portfolio company, instead of buying them through a partnership.

The private equity partners would then receive holding company shares, rather than being paid with carried interest. The private equity managers would pay ordinary income taxes on the initial share distribution, but any further increase in the shares’ value would be considered capital gains.

The structure is similar to one used in venture capital, said Patrick B. Fenn, a tax lawyer with Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld. “People are looking at this, but no one has gotten to the point where they’d do it for their next fund,” Mr. Fenn said. “You won’t see any real reaction on structures until we see the specifics.”

Added Mr. Morrow of Towers Watson: “There are a number of ideas on the drawing boards. I’m not sure any of them will work, but the tax lawyers and accountants are certainly working on it.”

Read More..

Russia Underworld Gathers for Aslan Usoyan’s Burial

Andrey Smirnov/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

People lay flowers on the grave of Aslan Usoyan at a cemetery just outside the Moscow city limits on Sunday.

MOSCOW — Aslan Usoyan, a Russian underworld boss who was killed by a sniper on Wednesday as he walked out of a restaurant in downtown Moscow, was buried in a snowy plot of land under a wooden cross on Sunday in a cemetery just beyond the Moscow city limits.

The scene at Khovanskoye Cemetery — where black-clad toughs formed a procession in their Mercedes Geländewagens, and security officers told journalists to avoid the area for their own safety — was a modest one for a mobster of Mr. Usoyan’s status, perhaps in part because of the government’s efforts to avoid the pageantry that has unfolded around the funerals of Russian mob bosses in the past.

Mr. Usoyan, a Kurd born in 1937 in Tbilisi, Georgia, rose through the ranks of the Vory v Zakone, or Thieves-in-Law, a shadowy criminal organization that emerged in the Soviet prisons, to become boss of the Moscow underworld. Mr. Usoyan survived four stints in prison, the gang wars of the 1990s and two assassination attempts, including one in 2010.

Many of Mr. Usoyan’s contemporaries are interred at the best cemeteries in Moscow and St. Petersburg, but Mr. Usoyan’s relatives wanted him to be laid to rest in his birthplace. But a plane carrying Mr. Usoyan’s body was reportedly turned away from Georgia, fueling rumors that the country had refused to allow Mr. Usoyan to be buried there. (Membership in Thieves-in-Law carries a criminal sentence of more than five years in Georgia.) And then all the cemeteries inside the Moscow beltway turned away his relatives as they sought a burial place.

On Friday, they traveled with his body to Donetsk, Ukraine, and had left for Georgia to bury him before dusk on Saturday when a Tbilisi airport denied landing rights to the plane carrying the coffin, a member of Mr. Usoyan’s family told Georgian television. The plane returned to Donetsk.

Back in Moscow, people within the mayor’s office told the news agency Interfax that “there would be no discussion” of a burial plot within the city limits.

Mr. Usoyan’s family eventually settled on a plot south of the city, where several hundred mourners, many of whom appeared to be from the Caucasus like Mr. Usoyan, arrived to pay their respects on Sunday.

It was a far cry from the 2009 funeral for the kingpin Vyacheslav K. Ivankov, better known as Yaponchik, who was shot to death in Moscow outside of a Thai restaurant.

He was buried at the Vagankovo Cemetery, several miles from the Kremlin, where some of Russia’s most celebrated artists, like the poet Sergei Yesenin and the folk singer Vladimir Vysotsky, are interred. Hundreds of rough-looking men carrying wreaths with inscriptions like “Forgive us, we could not protect you” gathered to see Mr. Ivankov buried in a coffin that was rumored to be equipped with an air-conditioner.

Russian mobsters are partial to ornate graves, and even in smaller cities like Yekaterinburg the burial markers show them wearing designer suits, casually smoking cigarettes or standing with their favorite BMW.

Mr. Usoyan, by contrast, was buried under a relatively simple Russian Orthodox cross.

On a bed of roses in front of the grave, mourners placed a black-and-white photograph of Mr. Usoyan wearing a pinstriped suit, and dozens of wreaths carrying inscriptions to “Grandpa Hassan,” Mr. Usoyan’s nickname, were stacked nearby.

Sergei Kanev, a crime reporter for Novaya Gazeta, said that the authorities had barred Mr. Usoyan’s relatives from burying his body in Moscow, to avoid what he called a “bandit spectacle,” like the one at Mr. Ivankov’s funeral.

“The government tried to do everything it could this time to avoid the sense that this is a country of thieves,” Mr. Kanev said in a telephone interview. “They could not have him buried as a hero.”

Mr. Usoyan was generally recognized as Russia’s most powerful crime boss, the successor to Mr. Ivankov. The police have not named any suspects in his killing.

Read More..

BlackBerry 10 camera software revealed, including built-in Instagram-like photo filters [video]

Just when we start to think we know everything there is to know about BlackBerry 10, new details leak. Mobile blog The Gadget Masters on Friday published a video revealing the new BlackBerry 10 camera software included on a pre-release version of the BlackBerry Z10 smartphone. While the software on this prototype phone likely isn’t final, several new features that will be included in RIM’s (RIMM) new BlackBerry 10 camera software are displayed in the video. Among the highlights is a built-in photo editor that includes cropping, rotation and Instagram-like photo filters. The full video follows below.

[More from BGR: RIM heats up as BlackBerry 10 launch nears]

This article was originally published on BGR.com

Wireless News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..

Djokovic plays another Australian Open marathon

MELBOURNE, Australia (AP) — The opponent was different, the match three rounds earlier. Still, the result gave Novak Djokovic a familiar feeling, and another chance to rip off his shirt in celebration.

Djokovic needed just over 5 hours to beat Stanislas Wawrinka 1-6, 7-5, 6-4, 6-7 (5), 12-10 in a fourth-round match Sunday night at the Australian Open, on the same court where he needed 5:53 to beat Rafael Nadal in last year's final.

"I just had flashback of 2012," Djokovic said. "It was maybe 45 minutes less this match than the one 12 months ago, but still it was still as exciting. I tried to enjoy the moment and couldn't ask for more. What a match point ... unbelievable."

He wasn't exaggerating about the match point. On his third attempt to end it, his backhand cross-court shot zipped past the valiant Wawrinka, who, Djokovic conceded, had outplayed him for most of the night.

"He came up with great tactics today," Djokovic said. "He didn't give me a lot of the same rhythm that I could get into the match. He was the one being in charge. I was passive. "

The win was Djokovic's 18th in a row at Melbourne Park after winning the last two Australian titles and advanced the Serbian star to the quarterfinals of his 15th consecutive major tournament.

Wawrinka, who had been receiving treatment to his upper leg muscles from late in the fourth set, said he would take more positives than negatives out of the match. He led 5-2 in the second set after outplaying Djokovic in the first.

"For sure, I think the best match I have ever played," Wawrinka said. "I fought like a dog like always. At 4-4 in the final set, I thought I might have won the match, but he was just better."

Djokovic will next play No. 5 Tomas Berdych, who needed five match points in the tiebreaker before beating South Africa's Kevin Anderson 6-3, 6-2, 7-6 (13).

Fourth-seeded David Ferrer won 6-2, 6-1, 6-4 over No. 16 Kei Nishikori of Japan to set up a quarterfinal against fellow Spaniard Nicolas Almagro, who was leading 6-2, 5-1 when No. 8 Janko Tipsaveric retired from their fourth-round match.

The Djokovic-Wawrinka match overshadowed Maria Sharapova's accomplishment earlier in the day.

Sharapova advanced to the quarterfinals with a 6-1, 6-0 win over Kirsten Flipkens in another impressive display — last year's French Open champion has lost just five games through four rounds, breaking the Australian Open mark of eight held previously by eventual champions Steffi Graf and Monica Seles.

"A couple that I've won, I felt like I was playing great from the beginning and I was able to carry that through the whole tournament," said Sharapova, who won titles in 2004 at Wimbledon, 2006 at the U.S. Open and 2008 in Australia before completing her career Grand Slam with a victory at last year's French Open.

She can't remember ever winning so few games through four rounds of a tournament, but realizes this means nothing if she doesn't make it to the latter stages.

"Well, I'm certainly happy to be playing this well but ... it only gets tougher from here," said Sharapova, who is playing her first tournament of 2013 after withdrawing from a warm-up event at Brisbane because of an injured right collarbone.

She next plays fellow Russian Ekaterina Makarova, who beat fifth-seeded Angelique Kerber 7-5, 6-4. Sharapova defeated Makarova in the quarterfinals here last year on her way to the final, which she lost in straight sets to Victoria Azarenka.

Li Na, who reached the final here in 2011 and won the French Open later that year, saved a set point in the tiebreaker before beating Julia Goerges 7-6 (6), 6-1. She'll play No. 4 Agnieszka Radwanska, who beat No. 13 Ana Ivanovic 6-2, 6-4 for her 13th consecutive win. Radwanska won the Auckland and Sydney titles before coming to Melbourne.

On Monday, Roger Federer plays Milos Raonic, and U.S. Open champion Andy Murray faces Gilles Simon. Azarenka, Serena Williams and fellow American Sloane Stephens also have their fourth-round matches.

Thy will have a tough time matching the spectacle of Sunday's late-night encounter.

Djokovic had beaten Wawrinka — the perennial No. 2 among Swiss tennis players to 17-time major winner Roger Federer — in their 10 previous matches. He hadn't lost a head-to-head since 2006 and had won 11 straight sets between them.

Wawrinka stunned the top-ranked Djokovic with three service breaks in the first set and had that 5-2 lead in the second before the 25-year-old Serb rallied by winning six consecutive games. But just as Djokovic seemed to be taking control, Wawrinka launched his own comeback to win a long tiebreaker and force a fifth set.

Djokovic got to serve first in the fifth, giving him a psychological edge as long as he held his serve.

Wawrinka had game point in the 22nd game but let Djokovic get on a roll. He saved his first match point with a service winner, then saved another two minutes later.

At 1:40 a.m. local time, Wawrinka was whacking his head with the racket and biting the ball after giving Djokovic another match point.

Moments later, he was slumped on the court, exhausted. Djokovic raised both arms, walked to the net and embraced his beaten rival, then pulled of his shirt and flexed.

"Give him credit, he made me run all over the court," Djokovic said. "He never gave me the same ball. He was aggressive from both sides. I didn't know what was coming next."

Read More..